- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:50:04 -0400
- To: Ilya Bogdanovich <bogdanovichiy@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: Marcos <marcos@marcosc.com>, W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Bogdanovich wrote: > Hi Marcos, > > I honestly don’t think the cpu/wifi cases are in demand. Do you know any real apps using these kinds of lock? No. But I'll ask around internally. I guess the point is to have enough breadth in the charter so that if we need to add something like it later, we can without needing to re-charter (which takes ages and is annoying for everyone for a bunch of reasons I won't go into here). Note that having the charter say that something is in scope doesn't mean we need to necessarily work on it. It's just saying that, we *may* work on it if people want to standardize it during the next 2 years. > Moz’s private implementation considers wake locks as part of Navigator object, but Screen object seems to be more native and intuitive for that. If we continue with “Screen” proposal [1], I don’t have an idea where we should put locks for cpu and wifi. > As above. Don't worry too much about the API design right now :) Just think more about "what are some awesome things DAP could potentially work on to keep the Web competitive over the next 2 years? Is any other group working on that?". We just want to make sure we have enough breath of coverage in the DAP charter to work on useful things (even if we don't end up working on them).
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 14:50:34 UTC